tv Justice With Judge Jeanine FOX News September 9, 2012 4:00am-5:00am EDT
>> judge jeanine: they didn't need physical evidence. they didn't need dna. all they needed was their god given common sense. the ability to tell the difference between the truth and a lie. this week, finally, a verdict in the drew peterson murder trial. welcome to "justice." i'm judge jeanine pirro. he said he could kill her and make it look like an accident. well, he was dead wrong! justice held his feet to the fire, calling out a judge who wanted to settle a political score at the expense of a victim. well, that didn't happen. some even gave us credit. >> if there was one juror who was a holdout which one do you
think it was? >> we don't know if there was a holdout. >> whichever watches fox news. >> this week, 12 people from all walks of life in the small town of joliet, illinois, reaffirmed our faith in the criminal justice system. a faith shaken by verdicts like casey anthony. the csi mentality of dna and quick fixes couldn't compare to the centuries old argument of motive, means and opportunity. and in spite of fractured and whittled down evidence that the judge created this jury connected the dots and make no mistake, circumstancial evidence is powerful. it has been used in this country to get convictions for 200 years. it has no motive to lie. no family members. no poor eye sight. no bias and no hostility. it speaks for itself. the wheels of justice are not always swift. they move slowly.
they always have. sometimes they need a little grease. sometimes a push. sometimes even a fourth wife gone missing. with us tonight is one of the 12 jurors who helped move the wheels of justice in the drew peterson case, juror ron sipolo. ron, thanks for being with us this evening. how are you? >> good, judge. good to see you again. >> and we have looked at each other for many weeks in that courtroom and i was always wondering what you were thinking and i finally get the chance to ask you. you sat through this trial. yew were the one juror who held out. why? >> well, i have -- that is a good question. it came down to 11-1 and it just happened to be that i was a holdout juror.
i guess i'm going to be known for that for awhile now and i just had some questions about the hearsay evidence and the circumstantial evidence and i had some questions as to the constitutionality of the hearsay, illinois' hearsay law and i just felt uncomfortable with the hearsay evidence and that is why i held out for an extra day. >> judge jeanine: you know, what is interesting is when the question came back from the jury to the judge what does unanimous mean, was there a thought for any time that you would not change your verdict? i mean what made you finally change? well, i had to reread the instructions from the judge on the hearsay evidence and the circumstantial evidence. i kept reading it and then, of course, the general indictment itself trying to find out if
using the evidence presented in court did the state satisfy the burden of proof that the defendant was guilty in this situation. >> judge jeanine: ron, was there and let's go to the whole jury now, there was any question regarding whether this was an accident or a homicide? was this something you guys decided early on? >> oh, yes. pretty much we pretty much did not even talk about the defense expert witness because we thought there were too many bruises in the front and back so the victim would have to have fallen down at least two different times and pretty badly to get h hurt with that many bruises first to the front and then to the back. >> judge jeanine: and you know, it is interesting. all of the argument between the attorneys and i think there were at least six expert
witnesses and did you you guys discuss the fact that the bruises the injuries in the front were bruises but the injuries in the back were abrasions? was there any discussion about that? >> no, not really. we knew that they were all injuries. when it comes to medical testimony, at least for me, it is pretty much greek. i mean she had many injuries to the front and back and what you call them exactly was at least to me irdevelop rant. >> judge jeanine: okay. what about the most significant witnesses in the trial? who were the most effective witnesses according to the jury? >> well, the hearsay witnesses reverend shorey and the harry smith and the reason for that
is because it was very compelling. some of the jurors including myself had some problems placing the defendant at the scene on that weekend and that hearsay evidence convinced eventually all four jurors that thought he was not guilty at first that he was at least at the scene and thus guilty. >> judge jeanine: a couple more questions. did you guys think that it was at all unusual drew peterson's behavior in the courtroom, the behavior of the attorneys? did you think it was less than somber, less than you would have expected in a murder trial? >> you mean were they not taking their job seriously? >> judge jeanine: well, how did it hit you? >> i thought the defense team was confident, having a good
time. not overconfident, at least not that i could see. i could definitely see that they were confident and they were -- i never saw anything unprofessional in their behavior. >> okay. >> so -- >> judge jeanine: let me ask you this, ron, final question. going into this as a juror did you have any sense that it would be as profound an experience and as difficult or, you know, easy a decision whatever it might have been for you? >> in other words, was it what i expected? >> judge jeanine: exactly. >> it was -- well, i asked the sheriff and he said between four to six weeks for a murder trial and that was about right. >> judge jeanine: but you found someone guilty of murder. a tough call, isn't it? >> yes, very much so. >> judge jeanine: all right. ron supalo, thank you so much
for joining us tonight and we he appreciate your service as well. up next, a "justice" exclusive. the man who took on the thug drew peterson and won. >> he was a thug. he would threaten people because he had a gun and a badge and nobody ever took him on. we took him on now and he lost. [ male announcer ] what if you had thermal night-vision goggles, like in a special ops mission? you'd spot movement, gather intelligence with minimal collateral damage. but rather than neutralizing enemies in their sleep, yoargeting stocks to trade. well, that's what trade architect's heat maps do. they make you a trading assassin. trade architect. td ameritrade's empowering web-based trading platform. trade commission-free for 60 days, and we'll throw in up to $600 when you open an account.
it is a dark day in america when you can convict somebody on hearsay evidence. >> it is. >> a very dark day in america when you let this in. who knows what the next victim of this hearsay is going to be and who it is going to be. >> judge jeanine: next victim? the defense continues to mix up the defendant and the victim. the victim is not the victim of hearsay. the victim is the victim of the crime. but now my next guest has reaffirmed our faith in the criminal justice system when won a case against all odds.
prosecutor james glasgow known as a state's attorney for will county. thanks for being with us this evening. >> my pleasure, judge. >> judge jeanine: we appreciate it. an exclusive for us. i guess the first question to ask you is you were relentless in your efforts to indict and convict drew peterson. why? >> well, when he went on his public caravan on national television i guess worldwide television and basically mocked violence against women, domestic violence and taunted law enforcement, i took it as a challenge and also i have been working for 20 years battling domestic violence and people like this just cannot be allowed to continue. and, you know, we obviously had to have the evidence so we started working a grand jury and that went on for i think a couple of years. a number of amazing things that happened throughout the process.
we were able to get legislation passed to create a statutory rule. >> judge jeanine: but jim, let's talk about that. so many people think that hearsay is not real evidence. from the time of the common law it is evidence. i mean and you really didn't need that law. it is in the common law. >> it was in the common law. but in our particular state it was difficult to convince judges based on the case law. so we had to have a statute. >> judge jeanine: what you are saying is there are judges who need to see something in a statute before they understand that they can use it. >> and even when we got the statute passed they were questioning it. and there was a lot of criticism from the media, the lebroliberal media. when the supreme court finally affirmed everything i was doing they were like oh, maybe he is right and they did a 180. again, when you are being criticized by law school professors who never stepped
foot in a courtroom it is kind of comical. >> judge jeanine: it wasn't just before the indictment and during the investigation. it was during the trial. i was there, jim, it was a beatdown of the prosecution every day. what i say against all odds it is not just almost a perfect crime. what it was was a judge who beat you down constantly and i know you are going before him again. were there days where you just wanted to say this is crazy? >> well, there were a number of rulings that were very difficult. the first week there seemed to be something in the area maybe the victory i had with the appellate court allowing certain statements in was going to be reversed at the trial court level and i had one of my assistants was up arguing and it wasn't going anywhere and i got up and stood behind her waiting for my turn and then just let loose with five years of frustration arguing the law and then the judge ruled our way. that was the turning point for me in the case and we never
lost focus after that. >> judge jeanine: as someone who watched i don't think you ever lost focus. the question that everyone is asking now, what is going to happen with the stacy peterson case, the fourth wife, missing since october of 2007? >> yes. well, we had a hearing in 2010 and we -- one of the things we had to prove at that hearing is that drew peterson killed both kathleen savio and stacy peterson by a preponderance of the evidence and that is what judge white found. some reporters thought we had a good case with regards to stacey peterson. we will go back and review that not just because the reporter said so. when you don't have a body, judge, you know it can be defendant. and stacy has been missing for five years and in this electronic we live in it is almost impossible for five years to not have any contact. >> judge jeanine: is there a time period in the state of illinois after which it can be
presumed that someone is dead? seven years in some states? >> again, for the criminal case that would be not. >> judge jeanine: that is not necessary. >> but that wouldn't necessarily be binding on any one. and we have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that she is dead, okay. >> judge jeanine: of course. >> and that he killed her. >> judge jeanine: november 26 the sentence. he can get anywhere from 20 to 60 years. what will you ask for? >> i'm going to ask for 60 years without hesitation. he was a police officer and use ad his badge to commit this crime. if you think about it, the next night when alleges that he was knocking on the door trying to return the kids he is in uniform and concealing a homicide. because he is a policeman he is committing official misconduct and hopefully the pension board will take notice of that. i underand it because technically he committed the murder while off duty that that may not be sufficient to terminate his pension. >> doesn't the statute say if he used evidence or what he
learned as a police officer in the course of his business that could be used to take away the pension? >> i'm not an expert on pension law but it is difficult unless it is done in the course of your employment. so some people would argue. >> judge jeanine: what about the hitman wasn't he employed and in the police car with his gun when tried to hire a hit man? >> that is a good point. that was never charged and again that was admitted as to his intent only in the trial. but it was i think it was powerful evidence. >> judge jeanine: real quickly will this wealth stand an appeal? >> absolutely. >> judge jeanine: you're not worried? >> no, i flew to washington, d.c. and watched the argument in gilles versus california where anton scalia laid it it out and he basically is a strength constructist. if was concept wasn't around when the framers did the constitution he won't buy it. that is why the 400 years is
really important. also the crawford case where you confront your witnesses he is one of the biggest proponents and he he is 100% -- it is an equitable forfeiture. if you murder the witness you can't go in and laugh at the judge and say ha-ha you can't prove your case now. >> you fought for battered women and you heard the cheers when you came out of that courthouse. the cheers were all over the country. i want to thank you on behalf of all of us and all of the victims' advocates in the country. thanks so much and thanks for being with us. >> judge jeanine: and the jury that convicted drew peterson did so because of two people. we heard last week from harry smith. the other is with us after the break. ♪ i hear the train a rolling it's rolling round the bend and i ain't seen the sunshine since i don't know when ♪ ♪ i'm stuck in follo folsom prn
a conversation either with her probably 24-48 hours i think before she went missing. the biggest issue that stuck in my mind is what advantage could be gained in the divorce in telling the police how drew peterson had killed kathleen. >> judge jeanine: the man harry smith with us last saturday. the other stacy peterson's pastor joins us now from chicago. pastor, thanks so much for being with us. >> i'm glad to be with you, judge. >> you ministered to drew and his wife apparently for the first time in 2005. do you remember anything about them? was there anything about this couple that stood out to you? >> well, i think their age difference was the biggest thing that stood out. he is much, much older than stacy. >> judge jeanine: and it is about 30 years or something. after that first meet in 2007
stacy peterson calls you and wants to meet with you so you meet with her at a starbucks. tell us what she said to you? >> i met her at the starbucks and stacy after we talked for awhile about regular marriage issues she said she wanted to tell me something and i said well, stacy, if you would like to share something with meow can but i don't want you to feel any pressure. after a little bit of time she said she just blurted out he did it. and i said what do you mean, he did what? and she said drew killed kathleen. >> judge jeanine: what did you say when she said that to you? >> i was just in utter disbelief. i heard a lot of -- >> judge jeanine: and pastor, excuse me for interrupting but you knew what she meant because you were from the community i assume? >> i was from the community but i he still wanted to clarify certainly. >> judge jeanine: and what did
you say and what did she say? >> i asked her, i said who did what and she said drew killed kathleen and she ended up giving me quite a lot of detail about the night that kathleen died and -- >> judge jeanine: you testified to that at the trial. and tell us what you told the jury? >> i told the jury that stacy and drew went to bed at the same time the night that kathleen died and at some point stacy woke up in the middle of the night andrew was not in bed with her. she looked all over the house for him and did not find him. and at some point she found him by the washer and dryer with a bag and he was dressed in all black. he removed all of his clothing and then he emptied the contents of the bag into the washing machine. and she walked over and looked inside the washing machine and
she realized that there were women clothes in there that were not hers. >> judge jeanine: you know, pastor, the jury has -- many of the jurors have said that it was your testimony along with harry smith that was the turning point for them. but i want to ask you on a personal level, you received a phone call from drew peterson after you met with stacy his fourth wife saying he wanted to take you on a plane ride? what happened? >> well, it was a pretty scary moment. after i left stacy after she told me this bomb shelf information i went back to the church and i checked my voice mail and the red light was flashing and it was drew peterson and he said well, i know that you just met with my wife and he said we haven't met in awhile it would be nice to meet with you so you can kind of hear what is going on in my life too and said it seems like a pretty good day for a plane ride so we could meet over at the airport?
>> judge jeanine: and what did you you do as a result of that call? >> i immediately called him back and i tried to as calmly as possible i just told him my wife is on bed rest, we are about to have twins and all i do now is go to work and i come home and i help my wife and i said i will have to take a rain check and he said okay. >> judge jeanine: did you feel that he was threatening you or tried to intimidate you? >> well, it did. i would definitely say that that was his goal. i have no idea what he would have done to me. >> pastor schori, i think that you certainly realize the importance of your testimony hopefully there will be justice for stacy peterson as well. thank you so much for being with us this evening. >> inarching you, judge. >> judge jeanine: after the break, drew peterson's lead attorney with some exclusive information from the inside of the peterson defense team. and later, kathleen savio's voice from the grave convicted drew. what are stacy petersons
now, let's get you back to "justice" with judge jeanine. and -- thank you. >> thanked us for his service and was happy with what we did. >> judge jeanine: all right. his is client convicted of murder and facing 60 years in jail. the leader of the team dream who ended up with a nightmare verdict, joel brodsky joins me now from chicago. how are you, joel? >> can doing okay. >> judge jeanine: when you spoke to drew peterson after the verdict what did he tell you guys? >> he wanted to tell the team he was satisfied and happy with our service. he felt we did a great job. he said that he is going to be holding his head up and walking out of the court with his head
up because he knows that he is an innocent man and we should do the same because he knows we did good work. >> judge jeanine: the decision to call harry smith is one that people referred to as a colossal blunder. he was the one person in the trial who was able to say that wife number four said that drew said that he actually killed wife number three. why did you guys put him on the stand? >> this was a decision of i would say the entire team that we debated it and there were dissenters but clearly there was a consensus. but he was put on and this is the problem with hearsay. we had to show that stacy had a reason to fabricate, a motive to fabricate and people lie this divorce cases or contemplated desourc divorce cn order to get more money. we wanted to give the jury a reason why she would fabricate.
unfortunately, he didn't tell the same story he told before under oath and in police reports and we will put as part of our post trial motion the fact that he did change his stories under oath and in fact when said the concealment to homicide was the vice he gave, you look at the statute, failure to report a homicide is not concealment so either he was -- >> judge jeanine: that is not the issue what the definition of concealing a homicide is. the issue is wife number four says can i get more money in the divorce because he told me that he killed kathleen. i mean when you weigh the scales of justice don't you say well, i can make her look really bad or i can have someone say he killed the third wife? what is the choice? did drew peterson agree to this? >> and this is the -- >> absolutely. and this is the very problem we have with hearsay. because we don't have the person on the stand to cross examine.
so we cannot get into their motives. we can't ask them all those revealing questions that they say that cross-examination is the engine of truth. we can't confront the witness. the only way we can do this is through other people's testimony about implied motive and that is the very problem and the very danger of hearsay evidence. >> there is no question but if a guy is smart enough to get rid of all of the victims we are not going to cut him loose, especially given the fact that if you kill someone so they can't testify in the divorce and you kill wife number four so she can't testify in the trial of wife number three you can't look at the judge and say na h-na-na-na-nah. >> what trial, though? >> the trial of the divorce that kathleen was kill sod she couldn't seventh fay in the divorce. stacy killed so she can't testify in kathleen. >> but drew wasn't charged. >> are you worried about
ineffect eastboundnes effectiveness of counsel? >> absolutely not. we talked with a lot of lawyers who understand this decision and it was the right call to make at the time because of the difficulty of dealing with hearsay. you know, they say that a failure is a lonely orphan and that victory has a thousand fathers. you know, everybody if we had won the case everybody would have said what a smart decision, what a great decision. and when you lose everybody wants to criticize and try to put it off. i was the leader of the team. we made the decision is among the team members as a team and we are all standing behind it the right thing to to. the only thing we had to do and we will move forward with the appeal now. >> judge jeanine: there is no someone suggesting you didn't work really there. you had quite a team there. i don't think there was any question that several jurors placed the conviction at the
feet of harry smith. >> another jury might have said something else and looked at it differently. >> i'm bringing in the expert panel. former lapd homicide detective fox news contributor mark fuhrman. former prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys joey jackson and jeff gold. what you have here is a case where they got a conviction almost unheard of because of the hearsay evidence. joey, i will start with you. i mean is this going to survive an appeal? is this guy going to get off? >> first, we'll see about that. quickly, let me say this. number one, congratulations, you honor. you opened on it and summed on it it and summed on guilty, okay. i think also that the prosecution here in the closing really tied it all together and what was big in the closing was what you talked about in your opening. common sense. the bruising, right. how do you get all that bruising from one fall. that was very significant in their mind. they he also summed up on what you just asked me about and that was the circumstantial
evidence having to do with hearsay. the problem, however, is that everything that was admitted in that trial with regard to hear are say was heard by appellate courts. it was admitted and as a result of those hearings on the appellate issues it was all legal and proper. how do you overcome that? >> jeff, can he overcome it? >> he can't. it is not going to be reversed on appeal. not only were the issues already addressed but you judge burmila as you know was very tough on the state. to tough on the state that he took out any possibility that there is reversible error in the case. >> judge jeanine: that is the only thing i will give him credit for. he was is so tough on the prosecution there is no way this case is going to be reverse. >> going to get at least 40 years in prison and very soon they will figure out a little more evidence and charge on stacy. >> mark fuhrman, didn't you find pastor schori. >> i did find neil and had the
advantage of spending hours with him so knew he would be a great witness and would corroborate. going on the appeal issue i am not an attorney. laymen wise the defense cannot appeal claiming hearsay when they put on one of witnesses that uses hearsay. >> very smart for a nonlawyer. you are smart guy. joel brodsky how can you claim that it was hearsay and shouldn't have been admitted when you guys put the witness on the stand? >> but we didn't plan on that witness fabricating on the stand. >> judge jeanine: who puts a witness on the stand when you don't know what he is going to say? >> we did. we had his prior sworn statements. he said one thing under oath before and another thing at trial. >> judge jeanine: he is talking about the 2010 hearsay. >> and the grand jury twice. >> joel, you know this, that is what cross-examination is for. in the event you put a witness on the stand and you anticipate. >> judge jeanine: hearsay.
>> because you can't -- but that doesn't give a witness an opportunity to lie in a homicide trial, come on. >> the statement that you you could confront the witness. >> it was more than an inconsistent statement. >> you can examine the witness and show that they are lying. >> that doesn't include perjury, lying under oath. >> when you put them on the stand you asked them what stacy said to them and you elicited the testimony. it is not going anywhere. >> we asked him what saycy. >> what stacy said. that's it. >> judge jeanine: let him answer. joel,. >> and he changed his story and that may very well be what reverses. >> judge jeanine: how did he change? >> from moving from it was extortion and attempt to get money to concealment of a homicide which is actually ridiculous. >> that is irdevelop rant to the underlying statement he killed kathleen and she told him that he did. >> but the very reason and the jurors said that the concealment of a homicide is
what sealed it for her and that is what is going to do it and may overturn it the whole case. that alone may get reversal. >> if you take harry smith and eliminate him completely neil schouri may carry this. >> it it is harmless. >> not error. [ overlapping speakers ] >> judge jeanine: guys we are in the -- the bottom line. going be overturned because of that? >> no,. >> no. >> no. >> judge jeanine: i'm the judge. no. no. all right. >> there was a lot of other error, trust me. plenty of error in that record. plenty of it. >> judge jeanine: joel, i appreciate your coming on tonight. i didn't agree with you. i didn't agree with a lot of the things you did but i think you gave it your all and at the end of the day it is about kathleen savio and she got her justice and your client is going to get his. joel, thanks for being with us. mark, joey and jeff, thanks. all right, kathleen savio's
>> judge jeanine: we now know what hatched to kathleen savio but questions still surround the disappearance of stacy peterson and her family wants answers. joining us her sister from chicago, her aunt, along with reporter and author of the book fatal strows the tragic wives of sergeant drew peterson, joe hosey. let me go to cassandra. we have spoken before. you have been very low he key during the trial of kathleen. what do you think the verdict means of guilty to drew peterson and in the kathleen savio murder? what does it mean to your sister's case? >> it means all of the focus is going to be on my sister now
so. >> do you think that we'll ever find your sister? >> absolutely. illinois state police are still working hard and so am i. we are all working together and doing searches and there is no rush now because drew is convicted and he is never going to be coming out. >> judge jeanine: and do you think that the fact is drew is convicted will cause more people to it come forward? >> hopefully. i urge them to come forward because they have nothing to worry about now. drew can't harm them and there is also a reward out there. >> judge jeanine: how are stacy's children, cassandra, do you you know how they are doing? >> i am not sure. drew denied me visitation and so has steven. >> and the sad part about it is your is sister stacy's two children lost their mother
obviously and now their father is going to be in prison probably for the rest of his life. where do you think these kids will end up going? >> i'm not sure. i guess we just have to wait and see and hopefully there is something that i can do to get some sort of visitation at least so that way i can see them. >> how old are they now, is a sandra? >> 7 and 9. >> judge jeanine: so hard. so hard. joe hosey, you wrote the book "fatal vows" and you sat through that trial every day, i saw you there. how does stacy peterson's case the book that you wrote about compare to the evidence that you heard in kathleen savio's case which led to a conviction? >> there is a lot more evidence in stacy's case. >> judge jeanine: you think so? >> there is direct evidence. tom says he helped drewarey a blue barrel out of the house. there is much less hearsay and much more direct evidence, physical evidence, cell phone
triangleiation. they don't have a body but that doesn't mean you can't have a prosecution. >> judge jeanine: and we full well know now that we have a prosecutor who will go to the mat on this stuff. candice aken akin, you are stas aunt. did you know drew peterson? >> yes. >> what was your impression of the guy? >> he was always nice to me and i treated him nice because he was somebody that stacy loved and i wanted to honor her. we never had any spats or anything. >> judge jeanine: as time went on did it seem that your niece was uncomfortable? >> yes, it did. >> judge jeanine: tell us about that. >> when i was there in october right before she disappeared she was very -- i could see that she was uncomfortable. there was a lot of stress in the marriage and she had a lot of anxiety. >> judge jeanine: were there statements that drew peterson made that i think you you were ready to testify to in the
kathleen savio murder case that the judge didn't allow you to testify to. harp the statements. >> the statements were that when we were looking -- they had came to california and they were looking for houses and just randomly he just said that he could kill and make it look like an accident and then stacy said not with this chick you don't. >> judge jeanine: not with this chick you don't. very interesting. did you think that that was bizarre at the very least? >> yeah, that was pretty unusual. i mean no one has ever said that had any kind of conversation like like that in front of me. >> and cassandra, i will go to you, if your sister's husband was going around saying to an aunt that he doesn't see that often or to his wife's aunt that i could kill and make it look like an accident. you were around stacy. what was it it like in the last days before she went missing? >> actually, it was quite stressful for her. she wasn't liking it at all and
she basically wanted my support and being there with h her throughout the whole time through that weekend. so we planned to see each other every day until monday when she had the appointment scheduled to see the attorney. >> so she was planning to divorce drew peterson? >> yes. >> judge jeanine: and did she ever tell you why? >> just his controllingness. she couldn't have a life. she loved him dearly and she proved -- tried proving it to him but he just was jealous and obsessive and wouldn't let her have friends and it just took a toll on her. >> did you hear the it testimony and i'm quite sure you did of harry smith the attorney that your sister called when harry smith said that the night that kathleen was murdered that he came home and that he put a woman's clothes in the laundry. i mean had she ever told you
that? >> cassandra? >> sorry, i lost you, somebody was talking in my ear. >> judge jeanine: did you you sister tell you that she found drew the night of kathleen's murder washing a woman's clothes? >> she never told me that, no. >> judge jeanine: good luck with the children of stacy peterson and hopefully there will be justice for your sister as well. joe hosey, author of the book "fatal vows," candace akin, thank you for being with us this evening. up next, the family of kathleen savio speaks out. and
>> judge jeanine: the trial is over and drew peterson is behind bars. two women waited years is for justice for kathleen savio. her sister sue is with me in new york and her good friend mary parks is in chicago. ladies, thank you so much for being with us this evening. >> thank you. >> all right. >> thank you. >> sue, what was it like? you were in the courtroom right in front of me actually when you heard that verdict guilty. how did you react? >> i gasped.
i -- i was in shock. it was so unreal. it still is. i'm still in shock. >> judge jeanine: you waited a long time? >> very long time. very long time. >> judge jeanine: did you ever think the day would come? >> sometimes i didn't think it would come. it just seemed like it would drag on forever. especially with the delays going on with the court with the hearsay and everything, i didn't know. >> judge jeanine: when you testified, tell us if you made contact with drew peterson? did you make eye contact with him when you were talking about what he said? >> yes. and he just stared right back at me. and he -- i felt like he wanted to get control of me. but i just kept looking right back at him. >> judge jeanine: and, of course, your testimony i could according to your sister that he could kill her and make it look like an accident? >> yes. >> judge jeanine: and what was her behavior? was she afraid? >> very was afraid, yes. very much afraid.
>> judge jeanine: mary parks, you studied nursing with kathleen. do you know what kind of nurse kathleen wanted to be? >> she wanted to be a registered nurse, just in general practice so that she could take care of her sons. >> judge jeanine: and she was a woman at that point who was separated if not divorced and she was on her own at that point, yes? >> yes, she was is. she had gone through the first part of the by fu bifurcated de before she passed away. >> you talked about the fact that kathleen told you that drew peterson broke into her house one night or suddenly appeared in black s.w.a.t. uniform saying why don't you just die. did she show you something after she said that? >> she showed me the marks on her neck where he had grabbed her and pinned her back and she thought at that time that she was going to die right then and
there. >> judge jeanine: she was your friend. was she terrified? did she think that she had any way to get out of it? was terr. she was terrorized and she didn't think that she could get out of it. she really didn't feel like she had anywhere she could turn and she just had to try and hang on until the divorce was final. but she really knew that he was -- she knew that he was going to kill her. >> judge jeanine: she did? she predictd that he would. >> yes, she did. yes, she did. >> judge jeanine: what about the children? what about kathleen's sons? have you you seen them or talked to them? >> no, i haven't. when everything was coming down to the final end, i asked to have a visitation right with them. this was before tommy was 18 so he wouldn't have been of age to make a decision. i went to my attorney through joel brodsky asking if i could
meet him at a certain is place and we could talk to go out or anything and someone could stay with me. >> judge jeanine: and was he trying to help facilitate the meeting between you and the kids? >> he came back with a letter to my attorneys saying no, the kids did not want to see me and didn't want nothing to do with me. >> judge jeanine: you know what the sad part of this is. we heard it from regarding both women's children. that drew peterson is keeping them away from their mother's families. very sad. all right. i want to thank you, mary parks for being with us. and sue although we are sad for you we are also so satisfied. >> thank you. >> this day has come. >> thank you. >> thank you both for being with us this evening. >> thank you. >> judge jeanine: all right. my thoughts. no one wants to believe that predators roam freely in our midst or that brutal acts are committed in the sanctity of a marriage that was formed in it love but every day women die quietly in the civil war that
rages in homes across this couny. they didn't do anything. they didn't ask for it and they are not angry possessed or bonkers, the words used to describe kathleen savio. they died because an abuser and not god has decided that they should. shepard smith he die because we they die because we don't listen and because we don't listen we give them a death sentence. it doesn't have to be this way. these women have predicted their deaths and asked for our help and even made plans for the care of their children. and although we can't take away their pain or turn back time to undo the damage, we have seek justice for the women who come after. the system expects us all to be detached and dispassionate? why? we simply aren't angry enough. i said it before. we call it the criminal justice system. it should be the victim's justice system.
justice is not something we deliver to the criminal. it should be something we do for the victim. kathleen died for no reason. and although it is too late for kathleen and stacy, they stand as silent witnesses like so many other bloodied and battered women before them waiting to see if we have the will and the courage to be angry enough to assure that their suffering was not in vain. you toss a stone in it a pond and there are ever widening ripples. and murder like a stone tossed in it a pond should create ever widening consequences. although drew peterson's family will be able to visit him in prison, kathleen savio's family is relegated on mother's day and holidays to go to her grave. this has been my fight and my passion for more than 30 years as a prosecutor, a judge, and a district attorney.